Directs the parties to confer and to submit to the Court in hard and soft copy, by 25 January 2023, an agreed form of orders, or if agreement cannot be reached, alternative forms of orders, reflecting these reasons.
Catchwords:
SUCCESSION – Claim by widow, who was second wife of the deceased, for a family provision order – The value of the deceased’s estate small – Deceased’s Will made some provision for the Plaintiff, which, in events that have happened, amounts, effectively, to one-third of the value of the proceeds of sale of the principal asset, being real property owned by the deceased, with the balance of the proceeds to be shared equally between the Defendants, who are two children of the deceased’s first marriage and the executors – Relevance of testamentary freedom – Guidelines relating to widows’ claims – Whether adequate provision for proper maintenance and advancement made for the Plaintiff
PROCEDURE – costs – costs in family provision cases where the value of the estate is less than $500,000
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Clarke v Clarke
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Clarke v Clarke [2022] NSWSC 1721
Case
[2022] NSWSC 1721
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Clarke v Clarke involved a widow, the second wife of the deceased, who sought a family provision order from the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the deceased's Will, which had made some provision for the Plaintiff, amounting to one-third of the proceeds from the sale of the principal asset, a property owned by the deceased. The balance of the proceeds was to be shared equally between the two children of the deceased's first marriage, who were also the executors of the Will. The widow argued that she had not been adequately provided for in the Will, despite the estate's relatively small value.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the deceased had made adequate provision for the Plaintiff's proper maintenance and advancement. This required consideration of the principles of testamentary freedom and the relevant guidelines for widows' claims. The court needed to determine whether the deceased's provision, amounting to one-third of the proceeds from the principal asset, was sufficient in the circumstances. The court also needed to consider the relevance of the small value of the estate in its assessment of the adequacy of the provision.
The court concluded that the deceased had made adequate provision for the Plaintiff's proper maintenance and advancement. It found that the value of the estate was a relevant consideration and that the deceased's provision, which amounted to one-third of the proceeds from the principal asset, was sufficient. The court noted that testamentary freedom allowed the deceased to dispose of their estate as they saw fit, and the guidelines for widows' claims did not mandate a specific provision. The court ultimately rejected the Plaintiff's claim for a family provision order. In addition, the court awarded costs to the Defendants, noting that the value of the estate was less than $500,000, and therefore the usual costs rules for family provision cases applied.